Method for Accessibility Assessment of Online Content Editors

  • Tania AcostaEmail author
  • Patricia Acosta-Vargas
  • Luis Salvador-Ullauri
  • Sergio Luján-Mora
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 721)


This paper defines a method for evaluating the accessibility of online content editors by considering Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (WCAG 2.0) and part B of the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (ATAG 2.0). The method includes 63 accessibility features that should be met by the images, headings and tables, which are inserted through an online content editor. The compliance of these guidelines contributes to the creation of accessible content so that visually impaired people using assistive technologies can easily access the content. Furthermore, the results of this study provide criteria for those people who have the responsibility of selecting an accessible online content editor. The proposed method has made it possible to meet the objective set out in this research document and can be used to evaluate the accessibility of learning management systems and course management systems.


Accessibility ATAG 2.0 Content editors Content management systems CMS Disabilities E-learning Learning management systems LMS WCAG 2.0 W3C 


  1. 1.
    Acosta, T., Luján-Mora, S.: Most common accessibility errors in websites of Ecuadorian universities. In: International Conference on Information Systems and Computer Science, INCISCOS, Quito, pp. 48–55 (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Luján-Mora, S.: Por qué es importante que la web sea accessible? In: El Impacto de las Nuevas Tecnologías (tics) en Discapacidad y Envejecimiento Activo, Tirant lo Blanch, pp. 94–110 (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hassan Montero, Y.: Factores del diseño web orientado a la satisfacción y no-frustración de uso. Rev. Esp. Doc. Cient. 29, 239–257 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Buzzi, M.C., Buzzi, M., Leporini, B.: Accessing e-learning systems via screen reader: an example. In: International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 21–30. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Minin, H.C., Alemán, J.J., Sacramento, C., Trevisan, D.G.: A WYSIWYG editor to support accessible web content production. In: International Conference on Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction, Los Angeles, pp. 221–230 (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Luján-Mora, S.: Web accessibility among the countries of the European union: a comparative study. Actual Probl. Sci. 1, 8–27 (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    World Wide Web Consortium, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0.
  8. 8.
    World Wide Web Consortium, Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 2.0.
  9. 9.
    WebAIM: Screen Reader User Survey #2 Results.
  10. 10.
    López, J., Pascual, A., Menduiña, C., Granollers, T.: Methodology for identifying and solving accessibility related issues in web content management system environments. In: International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility, Lyon, p. 32 (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    World Wide Web Consortium, Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 1.0.
  12. 12.
    Iglesias, A., Moreno, L., Martínez, P., Calvo, R.: Evaluating the accessibility of three open-source learning content management systems: a comparative study. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 22, 320–328 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Calvo, R., Iglesias, A., Moreno, R.: Accessibility barriers for users of screen readers in the Moodle learning content management system. Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 13, 315–327 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sanchez-Gordon, S., Estévez, J., Luján-Mora, S.: Editor for accessible images in e-Learning platforms. In: 13th Web for All Conference, Montreal, pp. 1–2 (2016)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Web Accessibility Initiative: Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) Overview.
  16. 16.
    Meyers, J.E., Bartee, J.W.: Improvements in the signing skills of hearing parents of deaf children. Am. Ann. Deaf 137, 257–260 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rocha, Á.: Framework for a global quality evaluation of a website. Online Inf. Rev. 36(3), 374–382 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tania Acosta
    • 1
    Email author
  • Patricia Acosta-Vargas
    • 2
  • Luis Salvador-Ullauri
    • 1
  • Sergio Luján-Mora
    • 3
  1. 1.Escuela Politécnica NacionalQuitoEcuador
  2. 2.Universidad de Las Américas-UDLAQuitoEcuador
  3. 3.University of AlicanteAlicanteSpain

Personalised recommendations